---

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): Some months ago, we discussed what the Government perceived as a rash of cases of jury nobbling. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that bringing television into the arena would make that problem 10 times worse?

3 pm

Mr. Heath: I am convinced that that would happen. I understand the argument that it might be appropriate to film judges delivering their judgments, if they agreed
 
27 Oct 2004 : Column 1481
 
to that, because that could be educational or of interest to people. However, it would not be in the interest of justice for witnesses, jurors or defendants to be filmed. It would not be in the interest of justice to film a criminal trial, a hearing in a coroner's court or proceedings in family or youth courts. Filming civil proceedings would rarely be in the interest of justice.

My proposal is an imperfect redrawing of the provisions of the 1925 Act. I do not intend to press my formulation to a Division, so I hope that the Minister will not spend time raising objections to the specific wording—I simply wanted to encourage debate. It is time for us to consider the matter again, although I am convinced that, by and large, the circumstances that presently apply are in the interest of justice in this country.

It is interesting that the provisions of the 1925 Act have already started to erode. It is not uncommon for people going in and coming out of courts to be filmed. Indeed, a television crew is almost always positioned on the steps of the royal courts of justice. Such crews are in clear breach of section 41 of the 1925 Act because that specifies that people shall not be filmed going in or out of court. I invite the Minister to give his opinion on whether such actions might be a blatant breach of the law as it stands. More importantly, however, I urge him to assure the House that if he proceeds with the experiment any further, he will bring his proposal before the House so that it can be subjected to proper examination and we can decide whether we want extant statute law overturned for the purposes of a prurient and over-demanding television industry.

Vera Baird: I confess that I would be horrified by the prospect of cameras no longer being able to set up outside the royal courts of justice. A major part of most senior QCs' public relations strategies is to cut an appropriate dash while walking along, with hair and bands flowing in the wind, so as to look like no one in the world would dare defy them. What is the world coming to if that is to be stopped?

On a more serious note, may I address the proposal in new clause 3 to extend the automatic application of special measures to victims of domestic violence because there is a lot in that argument? As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) knows, section 17 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 contains two categories of vulnerable and intimidated victims for whom special measures are available: first, those who get special measures automatically, which includes victims of sexual assault and rape; and, secondly, those who get them only at a judge's discretion. Although I use the word "only", the measures for such people are valuable. Domestic violence victims currently fall into the second category.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the current arrangements allow evidence to be given through a television link or from behind a screen. Arrangements can be made whereby barristers remove their wigs and gowns so that they look less intimidating, although I am sure that curbs must be applied on that. The serious measures that have been made available are valuable and proven as being able to improve the quality of evidence put before the courts.
 
27 Oct 2004 : Column 1482
 

The reason behind the measures is the sensitive nature of the evidence that is likely to be given, especially in sexual assault cases. As I have said—I think that this is pretty widely accepted—domestic violence is almost always accompanied by sexual abuse or sexual violence of one sort or another. Evidence in such cases is sensitive and difficult to obtain, so complainants probably always need the protection of such measures. The situation is even more sensitive in a domestic violence case because a complainant will inevitably be giving evidence against a person with whom she has had a personal and intimate relationship, which makes the process more difficult for her.

The Home Office review on sexual offences called "Speaking up for Justice" was a successful pre-legislative consideration of policies that was much praised. It expected that domestic violence complainants would be placed in the category of people who automatically received the measures. "Safety and Justice", the consultative document underpinning the Bill, raised the question of whether section 17 of the 1999 Act provided the right level of support for all vulnerable victims. A fairly powerful answer to that was received from Home Office research done through the Women's National Commission. The research said that section 17 did not give the right level of support, especially to domestic violence victims. It said that they should go into the automatic category. Two bodies of work that the Government undertook to examine the matter concluded that automatic protection should be available for domestic violence victims.

If a domestic violence victim who does not receive the measures automatically is to receive the protection that she needs, she depends on the alertness of a police officer to the availability of the measures and her need for them. She also requires a representative of the Crown Prosecution Service who is properly trained in the availability of the measures and ready to understand when they are needed. Of course, the discretion of a judge is required in the end. The most significant problem that exists if automatic protection is not available is that a person cannot be given a guarantee in advance of going to court that she will be protected by special measures. Everyone knows how difficult it can be to get complainants in domestic violence cases to come to court at all. Conviction rates are extremely low, and most of the drop-out occurs between the time at which the domestic violence occurs and the time at which the case reaches the door of the court. It could only be helpful if a woman who was unsure about her courage and confidence to go through with the process could be guaranteed by a police officer at the outset that she would not have to give evidence in the presence of the perpetrator if she did not want to do so. She would thus know that she would not have to look him full in the face and face the prospect of him doing everything possible to intimidate her.

New clause 3 would protect domestic violence complainants in not only criminal cases, but civil cases. Civil cases are usually conducted in private. They are usually held in smaller courts than those used for criminal cases and fewer people tend to be present. The relative intimacy of the environment is likely to make the experience more intimidating for a woman who has suffered domestic violence or sexual abuse because the person against whom there is a complaint would be
 
27 Oct 2004 : Column 1483
 
sitting within a few yards of her. Anything that could be done to help such a woman would be every bit as valuable as a measure in the criminal context. I urge the Minister to think carefully about whether it is time to reconsider the provision and extend its ambit. Its purpose is to protect vulnerable and intimidated witnesses, which it has been proven to do. This category of people needs to be within its protection.

A case was drawn to my attention by my local domestic violence advocacy set-up. There were serious allegations of domestic violence between a husband and wife. The husband came to court without representatives and sought the judge's leave, which was granted, to cross-examine her on the claims of domestic violence and sexual abuse. We turned our backs on that practice in the criminal courts in 1999 by stopping defendants in rape cases from cross-examining their victims.

This situation is another manifestation of the same problem. It is probably the case that it should not be allowed either. Now that the penny has dropped with the authorities far and wide that domestic violence and sexual abuse are part and parcel of the same syndrome in 99 per cent. of cases, we have to consider whether we should prevent someone in a case in which domestic violence is a hot issue in the family context from cross-examining. What happens is that the individual is taken through the incidents in detail and is made to relive them face to face with the perpetrator in a public forum. The court simply goes along with it, and in the context of the civil case it has no choice but to do so. That problem needs specific consideration and is another reason why at least special measures should be available to protect someone in that situation. I commend the new clauses to the Minister.

Mr. Llwyd: I agree entirely with the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and the purport of the new clauses. Like her, I have had many experiences of domestic violence in the criminal and civil courts. Her point about civil proceedings being just as bad if not worse than the criminal forum is right. They may well be held in private, but they are usually held in more confined courts with a judge considering a non-molestation order or an ouster order. The issues are the same, involving violence and a vulnerable witness who has to retell a horrible incident in her life. It is important that we do everything we can to make it possible for that person to give her evidence as comfortably as possible. After all is said and done, we fail her and the process, and undermine the idea of justice, if we do not do that.

The new clauses on the criminal courts and the civil courts are right. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider our points. The original special provisions of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 were introduced because youths are often vulnerable. By definition, a person who is subjected to domestic violence is in the most vulnerable category of all.

On automaticity, I take it that that would apply unless the complainant said otherwise. That is the right way to proceed. The automatic rule should not always be applied. Indeed, applying it would, perhaps, undermine the importance of the measure in a circuitous way. Judges will be able to weigh up whether that is right or wrong in due course.
 
27 Oct 2004 : Column 1484
 

The debate is useful. From my personal experience, I can say that the new clauses have much to commend them. From a practitioner's point of view, people are often afraid to come forward and when they do, on the morning of the court, they decline to give evidence. That is fully understandable because of the nature of the proceedings. I am not criticising complainants, but it is a huge waste of everyone's time, including the courts and lawyers, and it is a build up of pressure for that poor complainant who, at the last minute, falls back and says that she cannot go through with it. If it is known from the beginning that the provision can be obtained and that the complainant will not face, in a small enclosed room, the person who has abused her, that will go a considerable way towards enabling people with complaints to come forward and to give the evidence as it should be heard by the judge and as the court should decide on it.

3.15 pm

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mentioned cameras in the courts, which he described as a tangential point. They are not a good idea for numerous reasons, including jury nobbling, as I said in my intervention on the hon. and learned Member for Redcar. In all honesty, however, and with regard to the Home Secretary, I do not think that there is anything wrong with the Court of Appeal. There is no question of nobbling the Court of Appeal. It has a high standard of judiciary on every bench—I must be careful of what I say—but we are dealing with people who routinely make the law in the changes that they make. From the point of view of a practitioner, a student and public access, I do not envisage a great objection to a pilot in the Court of Appeal, but to extend it beyond that forum would be a grave mistake for many reasons, many of which are not pertinent to today's debate.

---